• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Future of the GWR electrification

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,358
Location
Bristol
Does anyone know if the plan is to wire all the platforms at BTM or just a few? With the possibility of wiring it all at a later date?
Sorry if it wasn't clear, but there's a general rewiring of the station electrics for the shops, lights, displays etc, that is nothing to do with any potential electrification.

If the lines were to be electrified, I would be surprised if any platforms were not electrified, since it would impose an operational restriction that would cause far more issues than any money saved would be worth. However it is possible that some could be done as part of Filton Bank and then some done as part of Chippenham-Bristol.
The bigger question for me is how far west the wires would get, and my suspicion is that only the Carriage Road at Bedminster would be wired, with limited if any overrun towards Parson Street, and probably no wires on the sidings at the north side of the west end.
If Filton Bank gets wired anytime soon there's not a lot that will benefit currently. The Bristol TM-London fasts aren't returning; the only moves that will use it are Cardiff-Exeter services and ECS moves to/from Stoke Gifford. If however BEMUs take over all the Bristol metro services, then it becomes very valuable.
In theory the Filton Abbey Wood terminator could go over to an EMU, depending on the exact limits of electrification, but would require the diagrams being redone. Removing diesel idling from Temple Meads would be a benefit in itself, and it opens the opportunity for the peak Paddington-Parkway 387s to be extended to Temple Meads, as well as giving greater flexibility for extras between Bristol and Cardiff on event days (which are fairly regular).

It also makes BEMUs and Bi-Modes more viable as it gives an option for electric running to be extended.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Quincy

Member
Joined
16 Mar 2022
Messages
30
Location
Bristol
Sorry if it wasn't clear, but there's a general rewiring of the station electrics for the shops, lights, displays etc, that is nothing to do with any potential electrification.
Ah okay, thanks for the info :)
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,968
image.png

This graphic has floated around a few times on this here website. I don't know from what stage of the design it originates but I suppose it's the general idea of it
Original source, including extra photos and information here.

The OHLE bits are Furrer+Frey (who sent these photos) while the cantilever structure is Atkins.

The structure is currently a proposal for BANES – as part of the concept design. However, it’s thought this is the agreed concept with BANES, although the detailed design has not started.
 

Benjwri

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2022
Messages
2,462
Location
Bath
Would be interesting to see if Filton Chord would be wired
You would assume it would be wired enough to reverse a train, given the Cost Benefit ratio of such a short amount of electrification would be significantly higher than the rest of the scheme’s CBR.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
8,252
Location
West Wiltshire
Would be interesting to see if Filton Chord would be wired
WECA put out a tender notice this week for North Filton station construction, and track renewal of Filton west curve. 29 month contract. Doesn't mention electrification (but that could potentially follow as separate tender)

1 buyer​

Description​

Construction for North Filton Station + Filton West Curve Track Renewal.

 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,358
Location
Bristol
Would be interesting to see if Filton Chord would be wired
You would assume it would be wired enough to reverse a train, given the Cost Benefit ratio of such a short amount of electrification would be significantly higher than the rest of the scheme’s CBR.
Not wiring Filton Abbey Wood-Patchway would be ludicrous given the GWR Bi-Modes on the West Country-Cardiffs and the strength of demand for Bristol-Cardiff. And if you're wiring the North-South chord, putting on a long enough overrun on the South-West chord for a 4-car unit to shunt behind would be a tiny proportion of the cost so I hope that sense would prevail in that situation.
 

Transilien

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2024
Messages
416
Location
Ayrshire
image.png

This graphic has floated around a few times on this here website. I don't know from what stage of the design it originates but I suppose it's the general idea of it
This reminds me of the OHLE on the central section of the RER C when it crosses the Seine near the Eiffel Tower.
 

Attachments

  • download.jpg
    download.jpg
    11.7 KB · Views: 167

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
Somerset
If Filton Bank gets wired anytime soon there's not a lot that will benefit currently. The Bristol TM-London fasts aren't returning; the only moves that will use it are Cardiff-Exeter services and ECS moves to/from Stoke Gifford. If however BEMUs take over all the Bristol metro services, then it becomes very valuable.
As IETs working Worcesters often /sometimes “pan up” from Westerleigh to Parkway they could as well (though may not still be there by then after the great 175 shuffle)
 

Benjwri

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2022
Messages
2,462
Location
Bath
As IETs working Worcesters often /sometimes “pan up” from Westerleigh to Parkway they could as well (though may not still be there by then after the great 175 shuffle)
I doubt they even shut the engines down though, and probably increases costs in wear on pantograph components from a raising and lowering cycle. IETs are fuel efficient enough that even the climate benefits from them using electric vice diesel for that time section are miniscule.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
Somerset
I doubt they even shut the engines down though, and probably increases costs in wear on pantograph components from a raising and lowering cycle. IETs are fuel efficient enough that even the climate benefits from them using electric vice diesel for that time section are miniscule.
My ears suggest otherwise.
 

Benjwri

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2022
Messages
2,462
Location
Bath
My ears suggest otherwise.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen, but while noise is an issue the mobilisation to electrify the Filton Bank would be a huge waste and increase costs significantly over just doing the Bath route too, which would also bring far more significant benefits on what could be run as electric.
 

John R

Established Member
Joined
1 Jul 2013
Messages
4,676
I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen, but while noise is an issue the mobilisation to electrify the Filton Bank would be a huge waste and increase costs significantly over just doing the Bath route too, which would also bring far more significant benefits on what could be run as electric.
Will it involve huge costs though?

When the route was requadrified, the new infrastructure would have been made electrification ready, so I would have thought it would be relatively straightforward in comparison with most schemes.
 

Western Sunset

Established Member
Joined
23 Dec 2014
Messages
2,832
Location
Wimborne, Dorset
Will it involve huge costs though?

When the route was requadrified, the new infrastructure would have been made electrification ready, so I would have thought it would be relatively straightforward in comparison with most schemes.
Probably electrification specs have changed in the intervening (few) years. Think the bridge at Lawrence Hill station will need attention.
 

Benjwri

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2022
Messages
2,462
Location
Bath
Will it involve huge costs though?

When the route was requadrified, the new infrastructure would have been made electrification ready, so I would have thought it would be relatively straightforward in comparison with most schemes.
The route through Bath was also made electrification ready for the most part. However survey and design work will need at least tweaking, often redoing, and from there on it is starting afresh. I was talking about the mobilisation costs for the equipment to install the electrification and the work force, there are a number of costs there that will be proportionally larger to the project for such a small stretch than they would be on the whole route to Swindon.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
2,955
Location
West is best
Will it involve huge costs though?

When the route was requadrified, the new infrastructure would have been made electrification ready, so I would have thought it would be relatively straightforward in comparison with most schemes.
The signalling is electrification ready / compatible (although as found at Bristol Parkway, some signal structures may need alterations once the OHL has been installed to ensure sufficient clearance from the pantogragh).
Most bridges are plenty high enough.
There is a large Network Rail OHL substation in the triangle between Dr Days Bridge junction and Bristol East junction that is currently sitting there doing nothing.
 

lachlan

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2019
Messages
1,037
The route through Bath was also made electrification ready for the most part. However survey and design work will need at least tweaking, often redoing, and from there on it is starting afresh. I was talking about the mobilisation costs for the equipment to install the electrification and the work force, there are a number of costs there that will be proportionally larger to the project for such a small stretch than they would be on the whole route to Swindon.
I think the Chippenham old footbridge is a sticking point - I don't believe this has been modified ?
 

John R

Established Member
Joined
1 Jul 2013
Messages
4,676
I think the Chippenham old footbridge is a sticking point - I don't believe this has been modified ?
Correct, and AIUI, that is the reason there was a late change to cut electrification back even shorter than the original “Grayling” plan of Thingley Jn, up to which some steelwork had been erected.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

There is a large Network Rail OHL substation in the triangle between Dr Days Bridge junction and Bristol East junction that is currently sitting there doing nothing.
Ouch! To quote Ian Dury, What a waste!
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,973
Location
Torbay
Correct, and AIUI, that is the reason there was a late change to cut electrification back even shorter than the original “Grayling” plan of Thingley Jn, up to which some steelwork had been erected.
Sensible when trains were changing modes somewhere in the vicinity anyway. Surely not a huge cost in the overall wiring scheme for the section. Can it simply be removed with pax directed over the newer structure or is there a gateline issue?
Ouch! To quote Ian Dury, What a waste!
Not really. A long lead item just there a little more in advance of inevitable future works than planned surely.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
4,991
Location
Somerset
I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen, but while noise is an issue the mobilisation to electrify the Filton Bank would be a huge waste and increase costs significantly over just doing the Bath route too, which would also bring far more significant benefits on what could be run as electric.
My comment wasn’t a “noise complaint” but saying that my ears tell me they are starting the engines at Parkway when they’ve arrived with pan up!
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,358
Location
Bristol
The route through Bath was also made electrification ready for the most part. However survey and design work will need at least tweaking, often redoing, and from there on it is starting afresh. I was talking about the mobilisation costs for the equipment to install the electrification and the work force, there are a number of costs there that will be proportionally larger to the project for such a small stretch than they would be on the whole route to Swindon.
Start Mobilising the teams for the easier section of Parkway/Patchway to Temple Meads, then by the time they're done with that Chippenham to Bristol should be ready for them to roll right on into. Lawrence Hill bridge is the only structure that looks particularly problematic to my eyes (most over structures have already been visibly rebuilt or are clear anyway) and the signalling's all ready. Getting Electric up the bank for the 80Xs isn't nothing, and it could also trigger a fleet replacement of the 165s on Bristol Commuter routes, which should have been electric traction long ago. There is also potential benefit for freight if Bi-Modes can be planned onto it.

Chippenham to Bristol has more challenges left, despite the amount of prep work done, and will be more disruptive as it's a 2-track not a 4-track route. Electrifying the Temple Meads Area is going to be complex enough with the Rhubarb Curve triangle and St Philip's Marsh to fit around, so may as well get started on something quickly.
 

John R

Established Member
Joined
1 Jul 2013
Messages
4,676
Sensible when trains were changing modes somewhere in the vicinity anyway. Surely not a huge cost in the overall wiring scheme for the section. Can it simply be removed with pax directed over the newer structure or is there a gateline issue?

Not really. A long lead item just there a little more in advance of inevitable future works than planned surely.
I think it’s listed, which was the issue 10 years ago.

Presuming it’s been there around 10 years, that’s a very long lead time to have incurred the cost without any benefit. Though I guess you could say that about the work done on Box Tunnel too, albeit that is less visible.
 

lachlan

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2019
Messages
1,037
I think it’s listed, which was the issue 10 years ago.

Presuming it’s been there around 10 years, that’s a very long lead time to have incurred the cost without any benefit. Though I guess you could say that about the work done on Box Tunnel too, albeit that is less visible.

indeed - from a freedom of information request we know:

"The location was chosen as a termination point due to constraints around Chippenham
Station and the reduction in line speed below 125mph resulting in an ability to maintain
train speeds whilst operating in diesel mode. In addition, the station footbridge at
Chippenham station is too low in height for the erection of wires underneath with the
bridge being a listed structure meaning reconstruction is not guaranteed. "
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,973
Location
Torbay
I think it’s listed, which was the issue 10 years ago.
The station building and attached canopies on the disused platform are listed but not the footbridge specifically, though clearly it penetrates the listed canopy on that side which probably means consent might be required. Here's the listing: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1268119

Perhaps if taken out of use, the stairs alone on the town side could simply be fenced off and retained with the remainder of the structure removed.
Presuming it’s been there around 10 years, that’s a very long lead time to have incurred the cost without any benefit. Though I guess you could say that about the work done on Box Tunnel too, albeit that is less visible.
Though when they actually built it, the project still firmly included the Bristol TM area, albeit with uncertain timescales as the various parts of the project were endlessly rephased on orders from DfT to first avoid the need to equip additional IETs with diesels, then deciding to spend counltless millions on buying them for the entire GWR Hitachi fleet. On the same basis, some of the resignalling probably wasn't absolutely necessary, though there has at least likely been some reliability and maintenance benefit compared to the 1970s kit. Can't not do long lead items just in case the project is subsequently cancelled. That way, failure is guaranteed!
 

John R

Established Member
Joined
1 Jul 2013
Messages
4,676
It wouldn’t have been a long lead time had the project not been curtailed. So I’m not criticising the rail industry, it’s Grayling who is the subject of my ire.
 
Joined
5 Aug 2015
Messages
297
Location
Norfolk
Me too! Possibly the worst ever SoS for Transport.

I always find it funny that Grayling cancelled MML electrification specifically say they'll get bimodes instead - and said bimodes have been so slow to materialise that the electrification project came back from the dead.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,973
Location
Torbay
I always find it funny that Grayling cancelled MML electrification specifically say they'll get bimodes instead - and said bimodes have been so slow to materialise that the electrification project came back from the dead.
I always thought it would likely be in the interests of a bi-mode lessor to strongly lobby for a rolling programme of more wiring, as that can steadily reduce engine hours for the contracted service and increase off-wire range between refueling visits elsewhere for the diesel generators. Engine maintenance is one of the highest cost elements, and its intensity is mostly dictated by hours or mileage run. With a fixed-price lease including maintenance over 27 years in the case of the original IEP, less maintenance activity equals more profit for the lessor. It might even allow the lessor to raise capital to help finance the wiring. Once enough wiring is present, all but a single engine for emergencies might be removed from each unit to be replaced by battery packs that could result in a huge reduction in maintenance costs. The wonderful thing about MML now is NR can complete phases almost piecemeal as convenient, because with bi-modes, there's no hard requirement to get specific entire sections complete for new fleet introduction. Phases can be switched around, delayed etc as expedient according to real-time engineering and resourcing constraints.
 

John R

Established Member
Joined
1 Jul 2013
Messages
4,676
Except the leasing and maintenance terms of a bimode fleet will have engine hours as a component of the ongoing costs.

So I would almost expect the opposite - fewer engine hours means less profit. A problem Rolls Royce had in spades during COVID.
 

Top